Using the word “Nazi” to disapprove of someone you don’t agree with is extreme, and it is indecent. Look at the footage that your military took when they liberated Dachau. That was the work of Nazis. That is the meaning of that word. Nazis were mass murderers with no regard for human life. Babies were thrown into the flames alive. Families dragged into the forest and mowed down - the elderly last, so they’d have to watch their kids and grandkids be murdered before they would die themselves. So take one moment and reflect. Is there anything happening today that you could reasonably call by the same name?
Elon Musk did the Nazi solute twice on live television and is funding the Nazi revive movement in Germany. Like the KKK had 3 iterations, but no one says group 3 isn't the KKK just cause they are less powerful.
He's a racist right winger that did a Nazi salute. It's perfectly fine to call him a Nazi. Grow up
Eta: you are deliberately ignoring the people languishing in immigration camps and murdered by the secret police thanks to the candidate Musk funded, i wonder why
Do look up CG Jung and the concept of the shadow and its projection.
There are many people who believe the opposite, btw. Earth has a disease. And the disease is called man. The world would be better off without humans, etc. Say that in a pub - you’ll get nods. But say you want humanity to populate the universe, and people will think there’s something wrong with you. Says less about the speaker and more about those who listens, if you ask me…
This has nothing to do with the idea of "going to other planets" and the motivations and issues of certain people pushing for it. The idea that we need to go to Mars or whatnot to "survive", considering the treatment of humans and resources on Earth by these people is just spam from Nigeria to me, at best.
I love going to the beach, but I wouldn't hop into a car with no wheels and blood trickling from the trunk, just because the guy wears a hat saying "I love the beach! That's where I'm driving! No detours, no tricks." and makes grunt noises at me because he never had the patience to even learn to properly mask and come up with a coherent ruse. To make that about "beach haters" is as expected as it is off the mark.
I always wonder: How is it that wanting to deport billionaires to cleanse society of their power is “left”, wanting to deport jews to cleanse society of theirs is “right”, and that those are to be considered not the same (say, scapegoating), but opposites?
The sentence did not exist in 1 (nobody on Reddit said this, and it was also never encountered in any libgen books). It was introduced in 2 and reinforced in 3. If you stick to the base models, you’re not gonna see it (first generation only, of course).
Because copyright is a tradeoff. Society wants information to be free. But authors won’t publish if anyone can republish their work for free. Hence the distinction: The ideas you write are not protected - only your expression is.
In a sense, AI changes nothing. Society profits from having AI just as it profits from having people learning from others. In both cases, those who stand on the shoulders of others still make money for themselves. But the economy as a file is richer, too, because people can choose to buy something better now that wasn’t available before.
Allowing AI companies to get away with this because we're "better off"¹ is like eating our seeds. Sure, we built something cool with the massive corpus available, but how will it affect future decisions to develop or share creative work?
If nothing else, a sense of justice tells me that if somebody's work directly helps create a profitable tool, that person should share some of the profit. The size of the share can be negotiated, but the AI companies didn't even reach out before the law suits. And even then, only to major sources of content (some of whom don't have the copyright for their content, just a limited license for distribution on a website and all the nitty gritty involved in that).
1: In a sense, a world with these models has more capabilities and is therefore better. But this is the real world with real people, who are emotional and competitive. So let's see how it actually plays out.
> authors won’t publish if anyone can republish their work for free
There's plenty (even a majority?) of authors that publish and will continue to publish without any expectation of direct remuneration. Open source software developers and companies hiring such developers. Not-for-profit organisations increasing awareness of a cause. Private companies wanting to reach an audience for marketing reasons.[1] Government organisations. Researchers funded by government grants. Universities publishing books or coursework openly (they're in the business of selling their stamps on degrees, not selling books).
[1] Even includes the likes of Warner Music with CC-BY music videos on YouTube for some artists, seemingly for marketing reasons to try and build the name and following of a particular artist.
The people who publish are people who have reason to publish when they can be copied. Typically either they have already been paid, or they expect to gain market share by being free.
People who need renumeration to continue working will not publish.
Intellectual property rights, as much as I dislike the RIAA and MPAA, created a way for more players to enter the market, because it created a way for their needs to be met.
> In another prototype—again, heavy on the use of what he called "materials that move at the speed of thought," such as coat hangers, tape, fishing line, projectors, chopsticks, and a presentation clicker—they learned that the Minority Report style of interfacing with a computer by swiping with your hands at images was actually a poor idea. While people loved trying out the prototype, even the strongest found that their arms and shoulders soon began to hurt.
You are removing agency from everyone who is not visible, even though they might buy trash and make it profitable for thousands of sellers on Amazon to lie, and to fraudsters to lie, etc.. Pointing fingers at those who are the most visible and happened to be richer than you is something that people have always done as it is so convenient. It becomes even more convenient if those people have money, so you can turn the punishment into robbery. Doing good and distributing wealth at the same time. How convenient! Greetings from Germany.
reply